Tavarez v. The Children's Village
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-09806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tavarez v. The Children's Village, Judge Karas ordered the Marshals Service to serve the complaint, without deciding the disability claims.
Josefina Tavarez and The Children’s Village; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take steps to serve the defendant.
What happened
Josefina Tavarez sued The Children’s Village under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that the employer violated her rights because of her disability, perceived disability, or record of disability. The court also said the complaint could be read to assert claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws.
Because Tavarez had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk to issue a summons and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve The Children’s Village. Tavarez must request more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summons is issued, and she must notify the court in writing if her address changes.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas issued the order on December 8, 2022. The order did not decide whether Tavarez’s disability claims were valid. It also denied permission to appeal without paying fees because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Tavarez v. The Children's Village · No. 7:22-cv-09806
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 8, 2022
Background
Josefina Tavarez brought this action without a lawyer under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a federal law prohibiting disability discrimination in employment and other settings. She alleged that her employer, The Children’s Village, violated her rights because of her disability, perceived disability, or record of disability. The court said the complaint could also be read to assert claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Chief Judge Laura Swain had previously granted Tavarez permission to proceed without paying filing fees. In such cases, federal law requires the court to arrange service of the summons and complaint through the U.S. Marshals Service.
Court’s Action
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for The Children’s Village, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with the defendant’s address, and give the Marshals Service the documents needed to serve the defendant.
The court explained that the usual 90-day service period would run from the date the summons was issued because Tavarez could not have served the documents before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered issuance of the summons. If service was not completed within 90 days after issuance, Tavarez was directed to request an extension of time. The court also required her to notify it in writing of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so.
Disposition and Scope
This was an order arranging service, not a decision on whether Tavarez or The Children’s Village was legally correct. The opinion does not decide the merits of the disability-discrimination allegations or the possible state and city human-rights claims.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The order was signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.